Exactly and well said Mark! From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 4:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: K for a Hose Valve
Design it with a computer, measure it with a micrometer, mark it with a piece of chalk and cut it with an axe! Sprinkler Design 101! Mark at Aero 602 820-7894 From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Travis Mack, SET Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 3:49 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: K for a Hose Valve The question still remains as to "why" something like this would be needed. If it just to plug into a computer to make it run calcs, then use Q = k*sqrt(P). Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC 2508 E Lodgepole Drive Gilbert, AZ 85298 480-505-9271 fax: 866-430-6107 email:[email protected]<mailto:email:[email protected]> http://www.mfpdesign.com https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/travismack On 2/20/2017 3:37 PM, Brad Casterline wrote: Nice Allan! And Steve, if you want 1139 at 100 out the valve you are going to need 143 at the standpipe, to get through the nipple and tee. It's like a sprinkler on a sprig calc, only the sprinkler is great big and the sprig is short and fat. Brad On Feb 19, 2017 6:01 PM, "AKS-Gmail-IMAP" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Lets look at what FM Global has to say. According to FM Global's minimum approval standards for these valves, "Approval Standard for Angle and Straightaway Hose Valves, Class Number 1521/1522 , December 2014" "4.11 Friction Loss Test - Traditional Hose Valves Only 1. 4.11.1 Requirement The valve shall be designed so that the obstruction in the waterway is minimal. For valves found to be non- compliant with Sections 3.2.3 and/or 3.2.4, friction loss testing is necessary. The valve will be tested in the full open position, and the friction loss through the valve will be measured at a flow rate that produces a fluid velocity of 20 ft/sec (6.1 m/sec) in Schedule 40 steel pipe of the same nominal diameter as the valve. The measured friction loss shall be less than 10 psi (69 kPa)." The "sections 3.2.3 and/or 3.2.4" in the text refers to physical seat lift dimensions in the valve. So FM does not took at pressure loss if the valve guts meet their internal dimension numbers. The standard does not refer to angle versus straight in regard to pressure loss. Both patterns must meet the same standard. I believe that 20 ft/sec in 2.5" schd. 40 pipe comes to 298 GPM at 10 psi drop, which comes to a K near 94. Figuring FM approval is "better than your average bear.", you might not want to use a K larger than 94. That 94 K would lose about 7 psi at 250 gpm. Allan Seidel St. Louis, MO On Feb 19, 2017, at 12:44 PM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Of course! I know this is unorthodox thinking, especially for an NFPA 14 maestro. But I figured out quite a few years ago how to get not only K, but the Q and P that goes with it for a flowing outlet with only two pieces of information; the nominal diameter and the coefficient of discharge. And after the twists and turns and showing off and stepping in it this weekend I wanted to take my best shot at being the anybody with a decent K for a 2.5 inch hose valve, as Vince asked. So "In the same way as a nominal 1/2" sprinkler..." K=113.85, if the C of D is .61, final answer. Thanks for hollering back, I was getting lonely out here, Brad On Feb 19, 2017 11:13 AM, "Steve Leyton" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Of course, that should have been GPM and not PSI. Steve -------- Original message -------- From: Steve Leyton <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: 2/19/17 8:44 AM (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, Vince Sabolik <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: K for a Hose Valve Awesome. So the "nominal" flow at 100 PSI will be 1,138.5 PSI? Maybe we need to change the hydraulic design method in the standard. Steve L. -------- Original message -------- From: Brad Casterline <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: 2/19/17 2:09 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Vince Sabolik <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: K for a 2½" Hose Valve K=113.85 In the same way that a nominal 1/2" sprinkler with a Coefficient of Discharge of .75 has a K=5.6, a nominal 2.5" hose valve with a Coefficient of Discharge of .61 has a K=113.85. Brad On Feb 17, 2017 8:28 AM, "Vince Sabolik" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Good morning, everyone... Does anybody have a decent K Factor for a 2½" hose valve? Thanks! Vince <20914 x WTFP Logo NEW1.jpg> 11351 Pearl Road / Suite 101 Strongsville, Ohio 44136 Phone 440 238-4800<tel:%28440%29%20238-4800> Fax 440 238-4876<tel:%28440%29%20238-4876> Cell 440 724-7601<tel:%28440%29%20724-7601> Vince Sabolik _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
